DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 315 of 27-10-2009<br /> Decided on : 17-03-2010 <br /> <br /> Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar aged about 45 years C/o M/s. Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Chakerian Road, Mansa, R/o H. No. 201, Ward No. 13, Water Works Road, Mansa.<br /> ..... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Aviva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office : 2nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110 001 India, through its Managing Director/Chairman/General Manager.<br /> 2.Avia Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, The Mall, Near Axis Bank, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge/Authorised Signatory.<br /> 3.HDFC Bank Ltd., (erst-while Centurion Bank of Punjab), Branch Office, Mansa, through its Branch Manager/Incharge<br /> 4.HDFC Bank Ltd., ( erst-while Centurion Bank of Punjab), Branch Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ish Kumar, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. <br /> Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that officials of opposite party No. 3 approached him in the month of April/May, 2006 for the purchase of Life Insurance Policy of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on the pretext that they have joint venture with AVIVA company and apprised him that in case of purchase of life insurance policy by complainant for a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lacs, he has to pay one time premium of Rs. 1.00 Lac in lump-sum at once and thereafter he need not to deposit any more amount. Accordingly, complainant deposited Rs. 1.00 Lac through cheque with opposite party No. 3 and a joint receipt was issued to him which revealed that he was allotted 4797.365 units of Growth Fund at NAV (Bid price) 25.068 for a sum of Rs. 95,192/-. However, no policy or terms and conditions have been supplied by the opposite parties to him. On completion of three years, when he approached opposite parties, they started demanding Rs. 1.00 Lac for per year for continuing the policy. When complainant demanded back his already deposited amount, they flatly refused to do anything. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1.00 Lac alongwith its expected return as promised by the opposite parties alongwith interest @24% PA. besides compensation of Rs. 2.00 Lacs and costs.<br /> 2. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed written version and submitted that on the basis of Proposal Form and the declaration made there under, replying opposite parties issued Life Long Unit Linked Policy bearing No. LLG1227017 to the complainant. The salient features of the policy were : a. Commencement date : 4th May, 2006<br /> b. Sum Assured : Rs. 10,00,000/-<br /> c. Annual Premium : Rs. 1,00,000/-<br /> d. Premium Frequency : Annual<br /> It has been submitted that all the terms and conditions of the policy were duly explained to the complainant. Even after issuance of the policy, he was provided with all the terms and conditions of the policy giving full facts regarding the policy. It has been pleaded that complaint is hopelessly time barred.<br /> 3. Opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 filed joint written version pleading therein that complaint is time barred and even in the first receipt issued to the complainant against the premium paid by him mentioned the date of next premium due. It has been submitted that averments regarding supply of policy with its terms and conditions are related to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and not to the replying opposite parties.<br /> 4. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.<br /> 6. The complainant alleged that at the time of selling the policy by opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, the opposite parties have not apprised regarding terms and conditions of the policy and its premium terms. The policy has been sold to him by mis-representing that he had to pay the premium amount only once. He was also informed that there will be minimum annual growth of 25% to 30% and in this way, on completion of three years, he will get double the amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac. He further alleged that no policy document has been received by him except receipt Ex. C-2 in the year 2006. He sent legal notice to the opposite parties vide Ex. C-3 and postal receipt thereof is Ex. C-4. Opposite party No. 3 has sent reply to the legal notice which is Ex. C-8. In addition to this, counsel for the complainant has produced photocopy of Guidelines of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (here-in-after referred to as 'IRDA') vide Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12, new Guidelines for Life Insurance Agents Ex. C-13 and ULIP Guidelines vide Ex. C-14.<br /> 7. In the written version of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, they have taken certain preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this complaint and present complaint is barred by limitation. In addition to this, certain preliminary objections are taken for the sake of objections only.<br /> 8. Objection taken by the opposite parties with regard to jurisdiction (territorial) is belied from the perusal of Ex. C-2 which shows that premium was paid at Bathinda and receipt was issued by Centurion Bank of Punjab, Bhatinda Branch of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this complaint.<br /> 9. Objection raised by the opposite parties with regard to limitation is also not tenable because as per Clause '16' of IRDA Instructions, the complainant is entitled to the surrender value of the policy after 3rd policy envisages. The policy commenced on 04-05-2006. Therefore, he was entitled to the surrender value of the policy in question on 5th May, 2009. Therefore, this complaint is well within limitation.<br /> 10. On merits, the opposite parties have alleged that proposal form for policy was filled and signed by the complainant on 07-03-2006. First premium amount was also paid by the complainant on 4-05-2006 vide Ex. C-2. Therefore, commencement date of the policy is 04-05-2006. Sum assured under the policy was Rs. 10,00,000/- and annual premium was Rs. 1,00,000/-. Premium frequency was annual. The policy documents were despatched to the complainant on 16-05-2006 vide courier receipt which were received by him on 17-05-2006. The opposite parties further pleaded that as per condition of the policy, it was clearly stated that the policy is on annual premium mode. In case the complainant did not pay annual payment as per premium frequency, the policy will lapse without surrender value.<br /> 11. After perusal of the proposal form Ex. C-3, it is revealed that complainant is Graduate and running Rice Mill and having annual income of Rs. 7.00 Lacs P.A. In the details of plan applied by the complainant, the name of the plan is mentioned as “Life Long”. The annual premium is Rs. 1.00 Lac. Cover level “10 times” of the premium paid i.e. “Rs. 10.00 Lacs”. The premium frequency is “yearly”. Further the details of bank account of the complainant was also given. In addition to this, certain other information regarding his health and his family has been furnished. This proposal form is duly signed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot take benefit of this fact that he was not aware about terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has not paid any further premium except the single premium vide Ex. C-2.<br /> As per Guidelines of IRDA regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policies (ULIPS) Ex. C-11, Clause “16” :-<br /> “16. What happens if payment of premiums is discontinued ? <br /> a) Discontinuance within three years of commencement – If all the premiums have not been paid for at least three consecutive years from inception, the insurance cover shall cease immediately. Insurers may give an opportunity for revival within the period allowed; if the policy is not revived within that period, surrender value shall be paid at the end of third policy anniversary or at the end of the period allowed for revival, whichever is later.”<br /> 12. In view of the above mentioned clause, the complainant is entitled to the surrender value of the policy at the end of third policy anniversary but despite of the legal notice sent by the complainant, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 neither sent reply of the legal notice nor sent surrender value of the policy.<br /> 13. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay surrender value of the policy in question as per IRDA Instructions/Guidelines alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for his mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 17-03-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) *ik Member